I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that the Kansas City Chiefs are not the worst team in the NFL. Honestly, I think there are at least 10 teams that are worse than us. Based on our 0-4 record, this might seem like excessive optimism. I think not.
Watching the NFL today, I realize there are a lot of Have's in the NFL right now, and there are a lot of Have Not's. I'll start with the Have's. The NFL Playoffs this season look like (barring injuries), as predictable as I've seen in a long time. There is a very defined line between the teams that are good and those that are not. This will also create great matchups for the playoffs, but little to look forward to until then.
Right now, after 4 weeks, my playoff teams are listed below:
NFC: Division Champions: Giants, Vikings, Saints, 49ers. Wild Cards: Eagles, Falcons.
AFC: Division Champions: NY Jets, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Denver. Wild Cards: Patriots, San Diego.
I would predict that by season's end, the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints will be playing in the Super Bowl. Indy is destroying teams right now, and New Orleans can even win by 20 points without Drew Brees throwing a touchdown pass.
These teams are excellent. Of that group, the Falcons and Chargers are probably the worst of the bunch, but those two are so much better than the Have Not's that it is just sad.
Let's get back to the Chiefs, and where I rank them in the Have Not's. The Have Not's include the following: Kansas City, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Tennessee, Oakland, Washington, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and St. Louis. There are 11 Have Not's, I think this is a very obvious list.
Next, let me ask you: have any of those Have Not's went through a schedule like the Chiefs? The Chiefs have played Oakland, and dominated them in every phase of the game except the final score. These teams have been able to pick up wins fighting amongst one another, the Chiefs have not had the luxury.
The Chiefs have been busy playing teams that they are not ready to beat. They are not yet designed to beat. I know this is of very little comfort, and the Chiefs might not have any fans left coming to the games once they finally get to play these teams.
I can tell you with reasonable certainty right now, that the Chiefs would beat the Buffalo Bills, Cleveland Browns, Oakland Raiders, Washington Redskins, Detroit Lions Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and St. Louis Rams more often than not. The Chiefs are not that bad in the secondary, linebacker, wide receiver, quarterback, or running back. They could be decent in the trenches, unless completely over matched.
The Baltimore Ravens, NY Giants, and Philadelphia Eagles are three teams that are greatest where the Chiefs are weakest, and those games showed that. Today showed that. These are teams that are great in the trenches and play mistake free football. They all are prime opponents to blow out the Kansas City Chiefs.
Todd Haley likes to talk about dividing his season in to quarters, and to look for progress every quarter. After the first quarter, the Chiefs are 0-4. In the second quarter, the Chiefs will play against Dallas, Washington, San Diego, and Jacksonville. Of the opponents, they probably match up worst with San Diego right now, but that game is at home.
If Todd Haley can make any improvement this season over last season, he has to start in the second quarter of the season. Dallas is a team that makes mistakes with Tony Romo at the helm. He's not confident at all right now, and their receiver play is average. If the Chiefs can fluster him with the rush, they can play good football.
Washington is a fellow Have Not. One that has had an easy schedule with games against Tampa Bay, St. Louis, and Detroit. This is a game the Chiefs match up better in. Jacksonville can run the football pretty well, however not as well as ANY of the Chiefs opponents thus far.
San Diego, of these teams, plays better football on offense, and has good potential in their front seven on defense. This could be a tough matchup.
The second and fourth quarters of the season are the ones that match up well for the Chiefs, so we can know if they are an average football teams that they will win those games. Those two quarters are going to be the difference between the Chiefs being in the class of average teams (between 12th and 20th best) and being at the bottom of the league.
I know it doesn't, but I really think they are average right now. Others might not be so optimistic, but we need a team that we match up better against. I still expect this team to win 6 games. If so, we're in the Top 20 for sure.
If the Chiefs go out and lay eggs against the Have Not's when they finally get to the breaks in the schedule, this is going to be a very depressing season. I'm not depressed yet. I see progress.
It starts with the Dallas Cowboys. Based on their game today, I can say that they have a big, powerful, clumsy offensive line. If Vrabel and Hali can get a good speed rush off the corner, and Mays/Williams/DJ can hold up in the running game, this team is going to have a shot. A 17-14 game can happen quick in a matchup with Dallas considering the mistakes Romo has been making. I think we can get to 17 against them.
Hopefully win #1 will come next week, and build momentum for the second quarter and assertion to mediocrity.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Land of Lincoln
When going through history classes in school, we are constantly bombarded with the heroes of wars past. Wars almost always involve heroes on the ground, this is acceptable and deserved. History books tell us about the Presidents and Kings who lead their nations through the war. This is seldom justified, and wars will continue into the foreseeable future.
Growing up, I believed that the Civil War was a war of necessity, of a President that wanted nothing more than to free the slaves. There are great quotes from the president that make this case: "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." His hatred of slavery is well known. The schools are the nation's propaganda machine, continuously telling us that this was the whole story. The schools tell us that Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents because slavery ended on his watch.
There are several quotes to the contrary however. Not of his hatred of slavery, but the true intentions of his war.
He was an anti-federalist, he viewed the Union first and the individual states second. The threat of war did not begin, until secession from the Union began. "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the National Authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 'The Union as it was.'" The nation divided, states exercised their Constitutional right to secession from the Union, and war began.
Lincoln gave a speech that is today famous: The House Divided. Basically, the fact that a house divided cannot stand. People tend to think this speech was naturally division into slave and anti-slave. What if this were not so? What if this speech was Federalist states and Union States, those who were Constitutionalists and those who wanted a centralized federal government?
The war was a tragedy. Over 1,000,000 soldiers lost their lives in the war. There was a great expense financially to fund such a war. The Union carried almost 70% of the soldiers who fought in the war, the South 30%. The Confederate flag, today all over the country, is viewed as a racist symbol against blacks. In the south, where it still flies, it represents individual statehood and independence to them.
What would be the ramifications of a modern President ruled over a domestic war where 3% of the total population lost their lives? Would this president be viewed as a great president when the history books are written? If a political difference lead to 9,000,000 people dying (the same percentage in today's figures) fighting amongst themselves, would we respect the leader who saw this happen?
The power of the education machine is quote astonishing. My perception of the Civil War and President Lincoln was always positive and that he fought for Human Rights. Why did the Union not simply spend the money that went to the war in purchasing the slaves, and making a Constitutional amendment outlawing the ownership and trading of slaves? If the war was for human rights, then why did it take so long to get equal rights and suffrage for blacks after the war had ended?
War is a power grab. Seldom can a ruler in war be viewed afterward favorably unless they have the power of the history book. Communist China, African Nations, Hitler's Germany, Stalin, and several others are viewed horribly in the world while the killing of their nation's people happened. Lincoln is a hero. Where does this hyprocisy come from?
Lincoln believed that the bond of the Union came first and the states that compose the Union came second. The Constitution created a very limited government with limited powers, the amendments were nothing more than human rights that would be protected and secured by the Federal Government, and it contained a final amendment that reserved all other rights to the states or the people.
The Civil War was a Federal War against States' Rights to Secession. Rights given to them by the founders. It was a huge power grab, one that is misrepresented enormously in the history books. It is really incredible, there are hundreds of quotes by the founders of our nation that identify peace, a small central government, and the rights of people and states. Lincoln exuded none of those characteristics, yet the history books tell us of his greatness.
He is in the Top 5 most dictatorial Presidents in the history of our nation, he presided over the greatest number of deaths in the history of the nation, and he cost the nation nearly as much in inflation adjusted dollars in battle of any president in history (as the only one fighting his own people).
The history books and the propaganda machine tell us one thing, but truth tells us something different. He was the first of a line of Presidents who would seek to centralize power. Lincoln started a trend, a very bad trend that centralized power which was a cornerstone in our need for secession from England.
Had Lincoln wisely bought the slaves prior to making them illegal, passed an amendment, and maintained liberty and sovereignty, he would be a hero. History books would ignore him, because war is sexy. Unfortunately they, like tabloids today, glamorize that which is sexy and ignore that which is noble and just.
Lincoln fits into the former, which is why he is less forgetable than the rest of the 19th century presidents in our history books. Who remembers anything from history class between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War anyways? The Constitutional Presidents are forgetable, war presidents will live on forever.
Growing up, I believed that the Civil War was a war of necessity, of a President that wanted nothing more than to free the slaves. There are great quotes from the president that make this case: "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." His hatred of slavery is well known. The schools are the nation's propaganda machine, continuously telling us that this was the whole story. The schools tell us that Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents because slavery ended on his watch.
There are several quotes to the contrary however. Not of his hatred of slavery, but the true intentions of his war.
He was an anti-federalist, he viewed the Union first and the individual states second. The threat of war did not begin, until secession from the Union began. "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the National Authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 'The Union as it was.'" The nation divided, states exercised their Constitutional right to secession from the Union, and war began.
Lincoln gave a speech that is today famous: The House Divided. Basically, the fact that a house divided cannot stand. People tend to think this speech was naturally division into slave and anti-slave. What if this were not so? What if this speech was Federalist states and Union States, those who were Constitutionalists and those who wanted a centralized federal government?
The war was a tragedy. Over 1,000,000 soldiers lost their lives in the war. There was a great expense financially to fund such a war. The Union carried almost 70% of the soldiers who fought in the war, the South 30%. The Confederate flag, today all over the country, is viewed as a racist symbol against blacks. In the south, where it still flies, it represents individual statehood and independence to them.
What would be the ramifications of a modern President ruled over a domestic war where 3% of the total population lost their lives? Would this president be viewed as a great president when the history books are written? If a political difference lead to 9,000,000 people dying (the same percentage in today's figures) fighting amongst themselves, would we respect the leader who saw this happen?
The power of the education machine is quote astonishing. My perception of the Civil War and President Lincoln was always positive and that he fought for Human Rights. Why did the Union not simply spend the money that went to the war in purchasing the slaves, and making a Constitutional amendment outlawing the ownership and trading of slaves? If the war was for human rights, then why did it take so long to get equal rights and suffrage for blacks after the war had ended?
War is a power grab. Seldom can a ruler in war be viewed afterward favorably unless they have the power of the history book. Communist China, African Nations, Hitler's Germany, Stalin, and several others are viewed horribly in the world while the killing of their nation's people happened. Lincoln is a hero. Where does this hyprocisy come from?
Lincoln believed that the bond of the Union came first and the states that compose the Union came second. The Constitution created a very limited government with limited powers, the amendments were nothing more than human rights that would be protected and secured by the Federal Government, and it contained a final amendment that reserved all other rights to the states or the people.
The Civil War was a Federal War against States' Rights to Secession. Rights given to them by the founders. It was a huge power grab, one that is misrepresented enormously in the history books. It is really incredible, there are hundreds of quotes by the founders of our nation that identify peace, a small central government, and the rights of people and states. Lincoln exuded none of those characteristics, yet the history books tell us of his greatness.
He is in the Top 5 most dictatorial Presidents in the history of our nation, he presided over the greatest number of deaths in the history of the nation, and he cost the nation nearly as much in inflation adjusted dollars in battle of any president in history (as the only one fighting his own people).
The history books and the propaganda machine tell us one thing, but truth tells us something different. He was the first of a line of Presidents who would seek to centralize power. Lincoln started a trend, a very bad trend that centralized power which was a cornerstone in our need for secession from England.
Had Lincoln wisely bought the slaves prior to making them illegal, passed an amendment, and maintained liberty and sovereignty, he would be a hero. History books would ignore him, because war is sexy. Unfortunately they, like tabloids today, glamorize that which is sexy and ignore that which is noble and just.
Lincoln fits into the former, which is why he is less forgetable than the rest of the 19th century presidents in our history books. Who remembers anything from history class between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War anyways? The Constitutional Presidents are forgetable, war presidents will live on forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
